The Change We Need

[kg_veteran]

This is an open-ended question to all Obama supporters.

What specific positions on the issues (e.g., energy, the economy, Iraq, foreign policy, etc.) made you decide to support Obama? And for each position that you list, what change do you think Obama will be able to accomplish?

[Flacolaco]

And do it without mentioning the words Bush, Cheney, McCain, Palin, or Iraq.

[Mavdog]

the obama positions that are positive in my view:

1. his healthcare proposal is both cost effective and not a government run health insurance program. the "market" has not been effective in providing coverage to all segments of our population, and we do not want a government run program.

2. empahsis on investing in alternative energy sources- including nuclear- shows a committment that we have been missing. "drill baby drill" is not a long term or medium term solution. we need leadership in this area.

3. his approach to foreign relations is a breath of fresh air. can't go any further or I'll violate flac's request...

4. his tax proposals are fair and equitable. the current tax burden is not being equitably shared.

that's a start, discuss away...

[jthig32]

"Drill Baby Drill" is the best (and only) medium term solution we have, depending onw what time frame you mean by medium.

Alternative energy is great, and we need more emphasis on it, but it's a long term solution.

[Murphy3]

I like how he's attempting to address our issues concerning over population by killing children.

[rabbitproof]

Open minds only please.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I like how he's attempting to address our issues concerning over population by killing children.

sorta like the accusation that mccain attempts to kill people via "bomb, bomb, bomb bomb iran" (sung to the tume of "barbara ann"). using you inane logic that is population control too...

[Flacolaco]

2. empahsis on investing in alternative energy sources- including nuclear- shows a committment that we have been missing. "drill baby drill" is not a long term or medium term solution. we need leadership in this area.

I was curious about the candidates and Nuclear energy...this is from the USA Today....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...-nuclear_N.htm

WASHINGTON — John McCain's visit to a Michigan nuclear plant Tuesday revives a debate over the promise and safety of nuclear energy.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee emphasized the promise, saying his plan to build 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 would help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

"If we want to enable the technologies of tomorrow like plug-in electric cars, we need electricity to plug into," McCain said after touring a nuclear plant about 30 miles south of Detroit.

Democrat Barack Obama is more cautious. While he says nuclear power should be part of U.S. energy plans, Obama said Tuesday the nation must find "safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste." He said the focus should be finding new energy sources.

A summer of record-high gas prices and tensions with oil-rich areas such as the Middle East, Venezuela and Russia have combined to make energy a top issue in the White House race

.
.
.

McCain's plan for nuclear power, including eventual construction of 100 new facilities, is just one idea in a package that also calls for more oil drilling and tax breaks to developers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources.

Obama's energy plan includes a tax on companies that make "windfall profits" from soaring oil prices, drilling on stockpiled oil leases and $150 billion to step up research on biofuels and other forms of "clean" energy.

Obama seems to want to invest a lot of tax payer money in "investigating" and "researching" things, and McCain seems to want do things right now. That appeals to me more. Drill. Build plants. Do it now. It creates jobs, and energy. What's not to like?

I realize that long term solutions are needed, but how much longer will we be using oil for a variety of things realistically? 75 years? 100 years? more?

There are trillions of dollars worth of oil right underneath of us that we will undoubtedly need. Even if we work out cars in 50 years, we'll probably still be heating our homes and flying our jets with fossil fuels for a long time. Drilling is necessary. There is no reason to continue sending trillions of dollars over seas for the next few generations. We should keep that money here. The sooner we drill, the better.

We can do McCains plan AND Obamas plan if you like.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the obama positions that are positive in my view:

1. his healthcare proposal is both cost effective and not a government run health insurance program. the "market" has not been effective in providing coverage to all segments of our population, and we do not want a government run program.

As I understand it, his "cost effective" program is going to cost $50-65 billion (per year) in new spending. What is the government spending $50-65 billion on, if it's not government-run?

When I read the bullet points about Obama's plan, I hear things like the following:

-- Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions

You can require them to cover those things, but you can't dictate what they charge in premiums.

-- Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees

"Covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs" -- sounds like government-run health care to me.

-- Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance

And how do you do that, exactly? If you dictate what they can charge for malpractice insurance, they'll just stop covering the high-risk doctors. And believe me, I don't care for malpractice insurance companies all that much. That's just the way it works.

-- Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care

So when they do this and employers start laying employees off rather than absorb this increased cost, how will you feel?

-- Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

Sounds like it will be subsidized to me -- government-run healthcare. If the government pays for it (or any part of it), they run it. Believe that.

2. empahsis on investing in alternative energy sources- including nuclear- shows a committment that we have been missing. "drill baby drill" is not a long term or medium term solution. we need leadership in this area.

It seems to me that both McCain and Obama are emphasizing alternative energy sources, so I don't see the distinction there, except that Obama's ideas look to cost quite a bit more.

3. his approach to foreign relations is a breath of fresh air. can't go any further or I'll violate flac's request...

How is this substantive? Explain.

4. his tax proposals are fair and equitable. the current tax burden is not being equitably shared.

that's a start, discuss away...

Explain how the current tax burden is not equitably shared. Please.

[mary]

2. empahsis on investing in alternative energy sources- including nuclear- shows a committment that we have been missing. "drill baby drill" is not a long term or medium term solution. we need leadership in this area.

This is a big point for me too. I've yet to be convinced that "drill baby drill" is even a short to medium term solution. Oil companies will drill when its profitable to do so. They have no incentive to provide so much oil to the market that it drives down prices. It doesn't benefit them one bit. How many acres of land do oil companies already have access to that are unproductive? And even if they did want to increase their output, how many years would it be for this oil to be brought to the market? Two? Three? Five? Every "energy expert" I've listened to believes that its unrealistic to expect that more offshore drilling is a viable way to solve the energy problem. We can't postpone R & D in alternative energy sources, just because there are no immediate benefits - that is just going to postpone the solution, IMO.

For the record, I'm all for lifting the ban on offshore drilling. Let the market "have at it" so to speak. But oil companies benefit from restricting production, and lifting the ban does nothing to change that.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mary

This is a big point for me too. I've yet to be convinced that "drill baby drill" is even a short to medium term solution. Oil companies will drill when its profitable to do so. They have no incentive to provide so much oil to the market that it drives down prices. It doesn't benefit them one bit. How many acres of land do oil companies already have access to that are unproductive? And even if they did want to increase their output, how many years would it be for this oil to be brought to the market? Two? Three? Five? Every "energy expert" I've listened to believes that its unrealistic to expect that more offshore drilling is a viable way to solve the energy problem. We can't postpone R & D in alternative energy sources, just because there are no immediate benefits - that is just going to postpone the solution, IMO.

I think the key here, though, is doing something NOW while you're looking for future solutions.

In that regard, I'm actually starting to become a fan of the PickensPlan, the more I think about it.

[DirkFTW]

But from an American standpoint, it's got to be profitable to drill right? If we drill, we risk lowering the price and we make less profit per barrel of crude. But if we don't drill, some Saudi prince gets all of the current profits and we get zero. (someone correct me if I'm wrong...)

EDIT: I'm all for nukular power

[mary]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

But from an American standpoint, it's got to be profitable to drill right? If we drill, we risk lowering the price and we make less profit per barrel of crude. But if we don't drill, some Saudi prince gets all of the current profits and we get zero. (someone correct me if I'm wrong...)

EDIT: I'm all for nukular power

Are you suggesting that if we drill, we'll stop importing oil? I thought you wanted lower gas prices.

[DirkFTW]

No, I'm suggesting that it is more profitable for American oil companies to start drilling for American oil rather than import from overseas. It probably won't ever be enough to replace foreign oil, but every American barrel from drilling is one more barrel of profit that is currently not being realized. If the same companies owned all the oil overseas, then there probably is no incentive for them to drill. I am not aware of that being the case, though.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Obama seems to want to invest a lot of tax payer money "investigating" and "researching" things, and McCain seems to want do things right now. That appeals to me more. Drill. Build plants. Do it now. It creates jobs, and energy. What's not to like?

depends on what things are built. more coal fired electricity plants? nope, not without mechanisms to clean the emissions...which require investment iand research n the new technology.

we do not have technolgy to replace oil as our primary energy source, and that is where the investment is needed. the investments will create jobs, the discoveries from the investments will create jobs and the results will lead our country to a future with less emissions (= cleaner air) and less dependence on imported oil.

I realize that long term solutions are needed, but how much longer will we be using oil for a variety of things realistically? 75 years? 100 years? more?

there will always be a need for oil in plastics and other items, but we must end our reliance on oil as our primary energy source.

There are trillions of dollars worth of oil right underneath of us that we will undoubtedly need. Even if we work out cars in 50 years, we'll probably still be heating our homes and flying our jets with fossil fuels for a long time. Drilling is necessary. There is no reason to continue sending trillions of dollars over seas for the next few generations. We should keep that money here. The sooner we drill, the better.

we can get our cars off oil in less than 50 years, that is twice what it should take. we can switch our homes in maybe 15 years? we need leadership towards the goal, and not reliance on the same fuel that brought us here...oil.

the less oil we consume, the more we can use our own reserves and the less we send overseas. switching our cars and electricity to alternative energy sources is a good step in that direction.

We can do McCains plan AND Obamas plan if you like.

obama's plan accelerates the conversion. time is of the essence.

[mary]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

But from an American standpoint, it's got to be profitable to drill right? If we drill, we risk lowering the price and we make less profit per barrel of crude. But if we don't drill, some Saudi prince gets all of the current profits and we get zero. (someone correct me if I'm wrong...)

EDIT: I'm all for nukular power

Who is this "we" that you speak of? Exxon made 49 billion dollars last year (which is a number much larger than zero). I didn't get one dime!

[Flacolaco]

All that other stuff that Obama wants to do/will do aside, what is the downside of more domestic drilling?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mary

Who is this "we" that you speak of? Exxon made 49 billion dollars last year (which is a number much larger than zero). I didn't get one dime!

Don't worry. Obama will rectify that. He will take those darn windfalls away from evil Exxon!

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

All that other stuff that Obama wants to do/will do aside, what is the downside of more domestic drilling?

Great question.

[rabbitproof]

Didn't Pelosi and Congress just lift the ban on domestic drilling?

And Obama said he's for domestic drilling (see debate).

What's to discuss here?

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by mary

Who is this "we" that you speak of? Exxon made 49 billion dollars last year (which is a number much larger than zero). I didn't get one dime!

Well, neither did I. I'm viewing it from a nationalistic, patriotic standpoint of "us" vs. "them."

There are jobs that could be had here in America in places with potentially huge oil deposits. That's good news. And I believe oil companies will want to tap into that because it is a part of the chain that they are not tapping into right now.

Oil companies are also part of the refinery business where they take foreign crude and refine it into more usable stuff (end user stuff). That's further down the chain from the actual drilling. Thus it is also profitable when the price of gasoline (the final product) is high. Regardless, if Exxon can make $100 billion next year with drilling added in, do you think they'll say "no thanks, I've got enough to be happy." At least for this calculus, their decision to pursue drilling would result in more jobs in America.

And thus, I view it as an "us" vs. "them" even though you and I are not part of the oil system. If we as a nation can create more jobs and wealth here in the States, then that will have a positive impact on our economy as well as our government's tax revenues. Those result in positives which can be redistributed such that I feel comfortable in using "we."

[mary]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

No, I'm suggesting that it is more profitable for American oil companies to start drilling for American oil rather than import from overseas. It probably won't ever be enough to replace foreign oil, but every American barrel from drilling is one more barrel of profit that is currently not being realized. If the same companies owned all the oil overseas, then there probably is no incentive for them to drill. I am not aware of that being the case, though.

Again, I rather pay a lower price for gas than make Exxon more profitable.

The problem with "Buy American" is that its a great idea, but few people think its good enough that they are willing to pay for it.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

As I understand it, his "cost effective" program is going to cost $50-65 billion (per year) in new spending. What is the government spending $50-65 billion on, if it's not government-run?

When I read the bullet points about Obama's plan, I hear things like the following:

-- Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions

You can require them to cover those things, but you can't dictate what they charge in premiums.

I didn't see that there was any promise or statement that the plan would "dictate what they charge in premiums"....if the plan did "dictate", it would be a government run program, which it is not.

seems that you want to falsely attack the plan for being a "government run program" and at the same time criticize it for not "dictating the premiums. contradictory to say the least.

-- Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees

"Covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs" -- sounds like government-run health care to me.

nope, the proposal is to provide a reinsurance market for catastophic coverage. that is thru private providers.

-- Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance

And how do you do that, exactly? If you dictate what they can charge for malpractice insurance, they'll just stop covering the high-risk doctors. And believe me, I don't care for malpractice insurance companies all that much. That's just the way it works.

the proposal is to increase the number of insurers who provide doctor's malparactice coverage, and to include the policies in the insurance exchange.

-- Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care

So when they do this and employers start laying employees off rather than absorb this increased cost, how will you feel?

what, the employers will just shut down their business rather than be in the program? there is a commensurate proposal to provide a tax credit to the businesses. btw small businees will be exempt

Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

Sounds like it will be subsidized to me -- government-run healthcare. If the government pays for it (or any part of it), they run it. Believe that.

it is private insurers who participate in the insurance exchange....repeat, private insurance cos who provide the policies. not public run, private run.

the existing federal plan- fehbp- is done thru private providers, blus cross being the largest. repeat, private providers extending coverage.

It seems to me that both McCain and Obama are emphasizing alternative energy sources, so I don't see the distinction there, except that Obama's ideas look to cost quite a bit more.

mccain is not leading our country away from reliance on oil, obama is leading. we must not be deterred by the short term cost to realize long term goals.

How is this substantive? Explain.

all I will say is if you approve of our current administration's foreign policy record than you will approve of john mccain's. if you do not approve what the current administration's policies have been, you will like obama's much better.

Explain how the current tax burden is not equitably shared. Please.

imo there is too much of the tax burden borne by the middle income brackets. there is too low an effective tax rate on businesses.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Didn't Pelosi and Congress just lift the ban on domestic drilling?

And Obama said he's for domestic drilling (see debate).

What's to discuss here?

Hahaha, I don't think they lifted anything. It expired because no one could get a majority on any proactive plan before the expiration date (or the ban is about to expire any day now... I lost track of that issue with all the banks collapsing.) What we have now is the default result if everyone sat with their thumbs up their butts for too long.

The problem with this void is that it is up to the states to decide what to do about their oil resources. I have seen no indication that the surfers and beachgoers of California are in any hurry to drill there. I'm not sure what the consensus is elsewhere in the nation.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by mary

Again, I rather pay a lower price for gas than make Exxon more profitable.

The problem with "Buy American" is that its a great idea, but few people think its good enough that they are willing to pay for it.

Oh sorry, maybe I missed something from earlier. It's news to me that the drilling agenda requires us to pay higher gas prices. I assumed at best they would stay the same, and we would most likely see lower gas prices. Especially after gas dropped something like $15 bucks/barrel in under 48-hours after Bush gave a speech threatening drilling, even though he had no power to do anything about it. I have no problem with Exxon making more money if it means we aren't sending those profits overseas to people who may or may not want to kill us all.

Plus, I'd be very frightened if our economy had to deal with the oil industry collapsing too. I doubt anyone would want to bail them out, and I doubt we could handle the impact.

[mary]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Oh sorry, maybe I missed something from earlier. It's news to me that the drilling agenda requires us to pay higher gas prices. I assumed at best they would stay the same, and we would most likely see lower gas prices. Especially after gas dropped something like $15 bucks/barrel in under 48-hours after Bush gave a speech threatening drilling, even though he had no power to do anything about it. I have no problem with Exxon making more money if it means we aren't sending those profits overseas to people who may or may not want to kill us all.

So you think shielding Exxon from foreign competition would make them want to lower their prices?

BTW, I'm certainly no expert, but the oil industry is a futures-based market driven by speculation. Somebody can fart in the Middle East and the price would change.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Hahaha, I don't think they lifted anything. It expired because no one could get a majority on any proactive plan before the expiration date (or the ban is about to expire any day now... I lost track of that issue with all the banks collapsing.) What we have now is the default result if everyone sat with their thumbs up their butts for too long.

The problem with this void is that it is up to the states to decide what to do about their oil resources. I have seen no indication that the surfers and beachgoers of California are in any hurry to drill there. I'm not sure what the consensus is elsewhere in the nation.

From what I understand, the ban was lifted/is going to be lifted by Congress:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...z/6021493.html

As a surfer in California, I'm not looking forward to the drilling in my backyard and I'm sure local agencies will fight it but the Feds are doing their part to move domestic drilling forward. Personally, I support limited domestic drilling but am definitely (perhaps unfairly) choosey.

For example, where I go out in the water everyday would not get my approval as this would seriously hamper my lifestyle and contain other risks (we recently had a couple oil spills this year in California that involved massive cleanups and closing of beaches) but to the bigger issue, I think issues involving state resources should belong to the states.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by mary

So you think shielding Exxon from foreign competition would make them want to lower their prices?

Err... sorry, I think you misunderstood what I meant by saying I didn't want us to ship all our money overseas for foreign oil. I am not advocating blocking foreign oil. I am only advocating drilling for oil here. Please elaborate more if this is not what you're alluding to.

Bottom line, the Saudis are essentially competing with themselves because we're restricting our supplies. Competition is lacking in the sense that we Americans are not allowing ourselves to compete. It doesn't make sense to cut off our nose to spite our Exxon face. I know some people really hate American oil companies, but destroying that industry is not going to be helpful.

[mary]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Err... sorry, I think you misunderstood what I meant by saying I didn't want us to ship all our money overseas for foreign oil. I am not advocating blocking foreign oil. I am only advocating drilling for oil here. Please elaborate more if this is not what you're alluding to.

Bottom line, the Saudis are essentially competing with themselves because we're restricting our supplies. Competition is lacking in the sense that we Americans are not allowing ourselves to compete. It doesn't make sense to cut off our nose to spite our Exxon face. I know some people really hate American oil companies, but destroying that industry is not going to be helpful.

Ok, I gotcha. I'm just wondering by what mechanism we will stop buying foreign oil then?

Voluntarily?

I don't care if Exxon makes $ 49 billion or $ 100 billion dollars a year. I don't not buy gas from them, just to spite them.

But I don't (and I think the majority of Americans wouldn't) want to pay higher prices just to help them out.

I want to spend the least amount that I can for the whatever quantity of gasoline that I buy.

I rather spend my money on feeding my family, paying rent, my utilities, servicing my debt, getting my hair done and taking in a Mavericks game. These are the things that directly effect my quality of life. And the fact that a company like Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in the United State (and a huge importer of cheap goods)s, tells me that I'm not alone in this philosophy.

Once again, I'm not against domestic drilling. But unless domestic oil companies have a significant cost advantage (keeping in mind that exploration and drilling is really, really expensive) or we start restricting imports (which would be disasterous), I don't see why oil companies would increase their output (or lower prices) just to make us happy.

[Flacolaco]

I don't know anything about economics. I are the stupid.

But what is the difference between Exxon and say...Dirk Nowitzki and LeBron James? Aren't they paid what the market will bear?

(I'm not trying to defend Exxon, btw. I wish gas was cheaper, though Exxon produces only 3% of the worlds oil, I am just trying to understand what would happen if Exxon said "well we're going to sell cheap gas just because, even though we don't have to)

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

From what I understand, the ban was lifted/is going to be lifted by Congress:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...z/6021493.html

As a surfer in California, I'm not looking forward to the drilling in my backyard and I'm sure local agencies will fight it but the Feds are doing their part to move domestic drilling forward. Personally, I support limited domestic drilling but am definitely (perhaps unfairly) choosey.

For example, where I go out in the water everyday would not get my approval as this would seriously hamper my lifestyle and contain other risks (we recently had a couple oil spills this year in California that involved massive cleanups and closing of beaches) but to the bigger issue, I think issues involving state resources should belong to the states.

Ah, yea I think we're talking about the same result, just with different terms. For a while, both parties were talking about structuring some sort of federal plan on how/where to drill, but neither side could get enough support.

[rabbitproof]

Increased supply, in theory, would reduce demand but ONLY IF there was enough competition. However, since private competition right now is not so stiff, as insinuated by record profits, the reduced production costs derived from increasing supply would not translate to cheaper gas at the pump for the consumer. Enough competition (or lower demand) would've already forced the oil companies to pass up record profits in the first place.

By focusing on increasing supply (without reducing demand for consumption or increasing private competition), we'll only be helping to increase their profits... right, mary?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Increased supply, in theory, would reduce demand but ONLY IF there was enough competition. However, since private competition right now is not so stiff, as insinuated by record profits, the reduced production costs derived from increasing supply would not translate to cheaper gas at the pump for the consumer. Enough competition (or lower demand) would've already forced the oil companies to pass up record profits in the first place.

By focusing on increasing supply (without reducing demand for consumption or increasing private competition), we'll only be helping to increase their profits... right, mary?

the price of oil has risen (imo) because of increased demand, static supply, and the expectation of further increases in demand with continued static supply (speculation).

the cost of producing oil from completed wells is not increasing while the prices paid for the oil produced is increasing= higher profit.

the gasoline supply is restricted to existing production capacity while demand is increasing= higher prices at the pump. the profit margins for the refiner have increased while the profit margins at the pump have decreased. that's why all the major oil cos have exited the retail market.

if the supply of oil were increased the prices would likely go down, although how much depends on the demand side. if the world's economy contracts, the price would drop a lot. if the world's economy were to stay level, the price would drop a little with increased supply. if the world's economy expands such as experienced over the last 5-6 years, the price of oil would stay high even if supply increases.

[mary]

I agree with everything ^^^ this guy just said.

[Fidel]

Domestic drilling will achieve nothing. The idea of creating more competition sounds good but domestic drilling in the US would only slightly raise the world wide supply. In the next 10-15 years the increase in demand will be much higher worldwide than the increase in supply anyways. At aound 2020-30 peak oil will be reached which means the level of supply will only go down from that point while the demand will probably still increase. Clever politicians will definitly try to steer their countrys away from oil NOW (like Sweden just decided to do).

And Nuclear is no alternative either. If you´d try to supply the world wide enery needs with nuclear plants the known uranium deposits would last 10-15 years.

On top of all that you have the environmental problems of both nuclear power and oil drilling. I see no reason why anybody wouldn´t be in favor of a huge push for alternative energies right now. It´s no hippie thing any more. Huge investments would mean cheaper alternative energy in a pretty short timespan. It would mean less polution. And most important it would mean less money and power for all those assholes in the middle east.

[jthig32]

Domestic drilling would still create more supply and cheaper prices while we bridge the gap to new technologies.

There is no reason to not do both.

[Fidel]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Domestic drilling would still create more supply and cheaper prices while we bridge the gap to new technologies.

There is no reason to not do both.

I wasn´t clear enough in my post. Domestic drilling would mean cheaper prices yes, but only in relative to prices without domestic drilling. Which means the prices will rise anyways, the increase would just be a little less steep. I don´t follow US politics close enough to know if that´s what´s said by those who advocate domestic drilling or if cheaper prices are promised which would be a lie. The prices will rise no matter what.

That´s why I hope that Germany will continue it´s way towards alternative energy with maximum effort. I believe this is the main problem right now when it comes to the safety and prosperity of the western civilization. Wouldn´t it be great to show those bastards we are the technological leaders and that we don´t need their stinking oil anymore. That day can´t be tomorrow, I´m not unrelistic about this, but I hope it comes sooner rather than later.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Fidel

I wasn´t clear enough in my post. Domestic drilling would mean cheaper prices yes, but only in relative to prices without domestic drilling. Which means the prices will rise anyways, the increase would just be a little less steep. I don´t follow US politics close enough to know if that´s what´s said by those who advocate domestic drilling or if cheaper prices are promised which would be a lie. The prices will rise no matter what.

That´s why I hope that Germany will continue it´s way towards alternative energy with maximum effort. I believe this is the main problem right now when it comes to the safety and prosperity of the western civilization. Wouldn´t it be great to show those bastards we are the technological leaders and that we don´t need their stinking oil anymore. That day can´t be tomorrow, I´m not unrelistic about this, but I hope it comes sooner rather than later.

Now you're just arguing semantics. "Cheaper than what it would be" still qualifies as "cheaper" no?

[rabbitproof]

True, 6.95 a gallon is cheaper than 7.00 a gallon.

Now, the question is what is the real 6.95 and what is the real 7.00?

[Fidel]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Now you're just arguing semantics. "Cheaper than what it would be" still qualifies as "cheaper" no?

It won´t be cheaper than it is now. And the price will climb faster and faster. Domestic drilling won´t stop that so why even bother? The only thing it will really do is giving oil companies some extra profit, that´s all. So why not steer away from oil right now? Actually electric cars will be readdy pretty soon as recent projects like the tesla roadster and the electro smart show. Batteries are still the Problem but the progress is astonishing given the rather small investments so far. There are pretty easy concepts for city cars that run on solar generated electricity.

Solar by the way is the only realistic alternative to fossil energy right now. Nuclear isn´t because there´s not enough Uranium. Bio mass isn´t because you can´t produce nearly enough to substitute oil. Same goes for Wind and Water (to unstable and not enough). But Solar actually would work.The sun is sending 10000 times the energy to earth each day than what we consume right now. You just have to convert it and find a good carrier, likely hydrogene.

If you have alot of small units you don´t even need a carrier which points to the biggest advantage of Solar the very short production chain which really only needs 2 steps, fossil needs 7, Nuclear 9. Actually it would be possible to supply all the energy the world needs through Solar right now if there was a huge concentrated push (if you dont believe me go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy . The small black spots on the world map to the right is all the space that would have to be covered with todays CSP´s. Since their efficiency is steadily getting better (Photovoltaics are 85 times as efficient as growing corn for ethanol!) it will actually get easier). Problem is that there are many interests against such a solution.